Sentences with phrase «respect of a child support order»

(4) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a child support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change of circumstances as provided for in the applicable guidelines has occurred since the making of the child support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order.

Not exact matches

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

Liz is known and respected across the state for her expertise in managing high - conflict custody disputes dealing with significant issues; family violence, child support enforcement actions, modifications of previous orders, grandparent rights, termination and paternity issues.

Section 281 (5) provides as follows: «Discharge does not, except to such extent and on such conditions as the court may direct, release the bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which --(a) consists in a liability to pay damages [of specific types]... in respect of personal injuries to any person; or (b) arises under any order made in family proceedings or under a maintenance calculation made under the Child Support Act 1991.»

(3) If a person having a duty to pay child support or spousal support under an agreement or order dies and the agreement or order is silent respecting whether the duty continues after the death of the person and is a debt of his or her estate, (a) the person receiving support may make an application under section 149 [orders respecting child support] or 165 [orders respecting spousal support], and (b) if, on consideration of the factors set out in subsection (1) of this section, an order is made, the duty to pay child support or spousal support continues despite the death of the person and is a debt of his or her estate for the period fixed by the court.

The judge made an order for divorce and dealt with matters such as where the children would live, sale of the matrimonial home, and division of assets, but he expressly made no order with respect to spousal support.

The Ontario Ombudsman has identified chronic problems within the Family Responsibility Office respecting the administration of child and spousal support orders.

a) the respondent was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted; b) the respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction either expressly or by defending on the merits of the case without objecting to the jurisdiction at the first available opportunity; c) the creditor was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted; d) the child for whom maintenance was ordered was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted, provided that the respondent has lived with the child in that State or has resided in that State and provided support for the child there; e) except in disputes relating to maintenance obligations in respect of children, there has been agreement to the jurisdiction in writing by the parties; or f) the decision was made by an authority exercising jurisdiction on a matter of personal status or parental responsibility, unless that jurisdiction was based solely on the nationality of one of the parties.

This order was granted, and the judge made additional orders with respect to child and spousal support and the costs of returning the child to Montana.

The application judge ordered that the custody and access arrangements in existence at the time of trial pursuant to the earlier order of Judge MacKenzie of the Ontario Court of Justice should continue and that a review of the orders in respect of custody and child support should take place after December 31, 2012.

Facts: The applicant Mother filed an affidavit in support of her motion for advance (interim) funding in respect of the appeal of the respondent, the father, from the order of Chappel J. dismissing his challenge to the jurisdiction of Ontario courts to adjudicate Mother's claims against him for custody, child support, and spousal support.

(1) A court having jurisdiction under this Part must not, at any time, make, revive or vary a child maintenance order in relation to a child on the application of a person (the applicant) against, or in favour of, a person (the respondent) if an application could properly be made, at that time, by the applicant under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the respondent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child, or vice vchild maintenance order in relation to a child on the application of a person (the applicant) against, or in favour of, a person (the respondent) if an application could properly be made, at that time, by the applicant under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the respondent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child, or vice vchild on the application of a person (the applicant) against, or in favour of, a person (the respondent) if an application could properly be made, at that time, by the applicant under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the respondent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child, or vice vChild Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the respondent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child, or vice vchild, or vice versa.